1991
DOI: 10.1007/bf02296572
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development of a distance education assessment instrument

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
14
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…5,6 The variables selected for this benchmarking project were derived from frameworks and models used in nursing 7 and in higher education to illuminate the effect of the use of technology. 9,10 The variables include outcomes that are enabled by Web-based courses (learning, recruitment/retention, access, convenience, connectedness, computer proficiency, preparation for real-world work, socialization, and satisfaction), educational practices used to facilitate learning (active learning, time on task, respect for diversity, interaction with faculty, interaction with peers, and rich and rapid feedback), 8,11 and the use of technology (technology infrastructure and the use of technology to promote productive use of time). The variables selected for benchmarking are defined in Table 1.…”
Section: Defining the Benchmarksmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…5,6 The variables selected for this benchmarking project were derived from frameworks and models used in nursing 7 and in higher education to illuminate the effect of the use of technology. 9,10 The variables include outcomes that are enabled by Web-based courses (learning, recruitment/retention, access, convenience, connectedness, computer proficiency, preparation for real-world work, socialization, and satisfaction), educational practices used to facilitate learning (active learning, time on task, respect for diversity, interaction with faculty, interaction with peers, and rich and rapid feedback), 8,11 and the use of technology (technology infrastructure and the use of technology to promote productive use of time). The variables selected for benchmarking are defined in Table 1.…”
Section: Defining the Benchmarksmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The inter-correlations show that, overall, each construct was significantly correlated with the other two constructs and with the entire scale. According to Harrison, Seeman and Behm (1991), this result provides further evidence for the consistency of the entire scale and for the convergent validity of each subscale. Therefore, it can be concluded that the three sub-scales and their constructs measure the usability of PresentationTube in a coherent way.…”
Section: Instrumentsmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…The results of inter-correlations show that, overall, each subscale (credibility and quality) correlates significantly with the other sub-scale and the entire scale. According to Harrison et al (1991), this result provides further evidence for the consistency of the entire questionnaire and for the convergent validity of each sub-scale. Therefore, it can be concluded that the two sub-scales measure the acceptability of online degrees in a coherent way.…”
Section: ) Psychometric Characteristics Of the Instrumentmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…This multi-level approach was based on approaches suggested by Harrison et al, (1991) and Hogarty, Lang and Kromrey (2003) for developing similar instruments. The instrument development process occurred in four stages: delineation of relevant domains for the constructs of interest, survey assembly and pilot testing, large-scale field-testing, and validation of instrument scores using factor analytic and correlation methods.…”
Section: A Instrumentmentioning
confidence: 99%